DOCSLIB.ORG

2.3. Relations 2.3.1. Relations. Assume That We Have a Set of Men M and a Set of Women W, Some of Whom Are Married. We Want To

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2.3. Relations 2.3.1. Relations. Assume That We Have a Set of Men M and a Set of Women W, Some of Whom Are Married. We Want To 2.3. RELATIONS 32 2.3. Relations 2.3.1. Relations. Assume that we have a set of men M and a set of women W , some of whom are married. We want to express which men in M are married to which women in W . One way to do that is by listing the set of pairs (m, w) such that m is a man, w is a woman, and m is married to w. So, the relation “married to” can be represented by a subset of the Cartesian product M W . In general, a relation R from a set A to a set B will be understoo×d as a subset of the Cartesian product A B, i.e., R A B. If an element a A is related to an element b ×B, we often⊆write× a R b instead of (a, b∈) R. ∈ ∈ The set a A a R b for some b B { ∈ | ∈ } is called the domain of R. The set b B a R b for some a A { ∈ | ∈ } is called the range of R. For instance, in the relation “married to” above, the domain is the set of married men, and the range is the set of married women. If A and B are the same set, then any subset of A A will be a binary relation in A. For instance, assume A = 1, 2, 3,×4 . Then the binary relation “less than” in A will be: { } < = (x, y) A A x < y A { ∈ × | } = (1, 2), (1, 3), (1, 4), (2, 3), (2, 4), (3, 4) . { } Notation: A set A with a binary relation R is sometimes represented by the pair (A, R). So, for instance, (Z, ) means the set of integers together with the relation of non-strict inequalit≤ y. 2.3.2. Representations of Relations. Arrow diagrams. Venn diagrams and arrows can be used for rep- resenting relations between given sets. As an example, figure 2.8 rep- resents the relation from A = a, b, c, d to B = 1, 2, 3, 4 given by R = (a, 1), (b, 1), (c, 2), (c, 3) .{In the diagram} an{arrow from} x to y means{ that x is related to y. This} kind of graph is called directed graph or digraph. 2.3. RELATIONS 33 1 a b c 2 d 3 4 A B Figure 2.8. Relation. Another example is given in diagram 2.9, which represents the di- visibility relation on the set 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 . { } 1 2 8 4 6 3 9 7 5 Figure 2.9. Binary relation of divisibility. Matrix of a Relation. Another way of representing a relation R from A to B is with a matrix. Its rows are labeled with the elements of A, and its columns are labeled with the elements of B. If a A and b B then we write 1 in row a column b if a R b, otherwise∈we write 0.∈ For instance the relation R = (a, 1), (b, 1), (c, 2), (c, 3) from A = a, b, c, d to B = 1, 2, 3, 4 has the{ following matrix: } { } { } 1 2 3 4 a 1 0 0 0 b 1 0 0 0 c 0 1 1 0 d 0 0 0 0 2.3.3. Inverse Relation. Given a relation R from A to B, the 1 inverse of R, denoted R− , is the relation from B to A defined as 1 b R− a a R b . ⇔ 2.3. RELATIONS 34 For instance, if R is the relation “being a son or daughter of”, then 1 R− is the relation “being a parent of”. 2.3.4. Composition of Relations. Let A, B and C be three sets. Given a relation R from A to B and a relation S from B to C, then the composition S R of relations R and S is a relation from A to C defined by: ◦ a (S R) c there exists some b B such that a R b and b S c . ◦ ⇔ ∈ For instance, if R is the relation “to be the father of”, and S is the relation “to be married to”, then S R is the relation “to be the father in law of”. ◦ 2.3.5. Properties of Binary Relations. A binary relation R on A is called: 1. Reflexive if for all x A, x R x. For instance on Z the relation “equal to” (=) is reflexiv∈ e. 2. Transitive if for all x, y, z A, x R y and y R z implies x R z. ∈ For instance equality (=) and inequality (<) on Z are transitive relations. 3. Symmetric if for all x, y A, x R y y R x. For instance on Z, equality (=) is symmetric,∈ but strict⇒inequality (<) is not. 4. Antisymmetric if for all x, y A, x R y and y R x implies x = y. ∈ For instance, non-strict inequality ( ) on Z is antisymmetric. ≤ 2.3.6. Partial Orders. A partial order, or simply, an order on a set A is a binary relation “4” on A with the following properties: 1. Reflexive: for all x A, x x. ∈ 4 2. Antisymmetric: (x 4 y) (y 4 x) x = y. 3. Transitive: (x y) (y ∧ z) x ⇒ z. 4 ∧ 4 ⇒ 4 Examples: 1. The non-strict inequality ( ) in Z. ≤ 2. Relation of divisibility on Z+: a b t, b = at. | ⇔ ∃ 2.3. RELATIONS 35 3. Set inclusion ( ) on P(A) (the collection of subsets of a given set A). ⊆ Exercise: prove that the aforementioned relations are in fact partial orders. As an example we prove that integer divisibility is a partial order: 1. Reflexive: a = a 1 a a. ⇒ | 2. Antisymmetric: a b b = at for some t and b a a = bt0 for | ⇒ | ⇒ 1 some t0. Hence a = att0, which implies tt0 = 1 t0 = t− . The ⇒ only invertible positive integer is 1, so t = t0 = 1 a = b. ⇒ 3. Transitive: a b and b c implies b = at for some t and c = bt0 for | | some t0, hence c = att0, i.e., a c. | Question: is the strict inequality (<) a partial order on Z? Two elements a, b A are said to be comparable if either x y ∈ 4 or y 4 x, otherwise they are said to be non comparable. The order is called total or linear when every pair of elements x, y A are com- ∈ parable. For instance (Z, ) is totally ordered, but (Z+, ), where “ ” represents integer divisibilit≤y, is not. A totally ordered subset| of a par-| tially ordered set is called a chain; for instance the set 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, . { } is a chain in (Z+, ). | 2.3.7. Hasse diagrams. A Hasse diagram is a graphical represen- tation of a partially ordered set in which each element is represented by a dot (node or vertex of the diagram). Its immediate successors are placed above the node and connected to it by straight line segments. As an example, figure 2.10 represents the Hasse diagram for the relation of divisibility on 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 . { } Question: How does the Hasse diagram look for a totally ordered set? 2.3.8. Equivalence Relations. An equivalence relation on a set A is a binary relation “ ” on A with the following properties: ∼ 1. Reflexive: for all x A, x x. 2. Symmetric: x y ∈ y ∼x. 3. Transitive: (x ∼ y)⇒ (y∼ z) x z. ∼ ∧ ∼ ⇒ ∼ 2.3. RELATIONS 36 8 9 4 6 5 7 2 3 1 Figure 2.10. Hasse diagram for divisibility. For instance, on Z, the equality (=) is an equivalence relation. Another example, also on Z, is the following: x y (mod 2) (“x is congruent to y modulo 2”) iff x y is even. For instance,≡ 6 2 (mod 2) because 6 2 = 4 is even, but 7− 4 (mod 2), because 7 ≡4 = 3 is not even. Congruence− modulo 2 is in6≡fact an equivalence relation:− 1. Reflexive: for every integer x, x x = 0 is indeed even, so x x (mod 2). − ≡ 2. Symmetric: if x y (mod 2) then x y = t is even, but y x = t is also≡even, hence y x (mo−d 2). − − ≡ 3. Transitive: assume x y (mod 2) and y z (mod 2). Then x y = t and y z = ≡u are even. From here,≡ x z = (x y) + (y− z) = t + u −is also even, hence x z (mod −2). − − ≡ 2.3.9. Equivalence Classes, Quotient Set, Partitions. Given an equivalence relation on a set A, and an element x A, the set of elements of A related∼ to x are called the equivalence∈class of x, represented [x] = y A y x . Element x is said to be a representative of class{ ∈ | ∼ } [x]. The collection of equivalence classes, represented A/ = [x] x A , is called quotient set of A by . ∼ { | ∈ } ∼ Exercise: Find the equivalence classes on Z with the relation of congruence modulo 2. One of the main properties of an equivalence relation on a set A is that the quotient set, i.e. the collection of equivalence classes, is a partition of A. Recall that a partition of a set A is a collection of 2.3. RELATIONS 37 non-empty subsets A1, A2, A3, . of A which are pairwise disjoint and whose union equals A: 1. A A = for i = j, i ∩ j ∅ 6 2. n An = A. ExampleS : in Z with the relation of congruence modulo 2 (call it “ 2”), there are two equivalence classes: the set E of even integers and ∼ the set O of odd integers.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Filtering Germs: Groupoids Associated to Inverse Semigroups
    FILTERING GERMS: GROUPOIDS ASSOCIATED TO INVERSE SEMIGROUPS BECKY ARMSTRONG, LISA ORLOFF CLARK, ASTRID AN HUEF, MALCOLM JONES, AND YING-FEN LIN Abstract. We investigate various groupoids associated to an arbitrary inverse semigroup with zero. We show that the groupoid of filters with respect to the natural partial order is isomorphic to the groupoid of germs arising from the standard action of the inverse semigroup on the space of idempotent filters. We also investigate the restriction of this isomorphism to the groupoid of tight filters and to the groupoid of ultrafilters. 1. Introduction An inverse semigroup is a set S endowed with an associative binary operation such that for each a 2 S, there is a unique a∗ 2 S, called the inverse of a, satisfying aa∗a = a and a∗aa∗ = a∗: The study of ´etalegroupoids associated to inverse semigroups was initiated by Renault [Ren80, Remark III.2.4]. We consider two well known groupoid constructions: the filter approach and the germ approach, and we show that the two approaches yield isomorphic groupoids. Every inverse semigroup has a natural partial order, and a filter is a nonempty down-directed up-set with respect to this order. The filter approach to groupoid construction first appeared in [Len08], and was later simplified in [LMS13]. Work in this area is ongoing; see for instance, [Bic21, BC20, Cas20]. Every inverse semigroup acts on the filters of its subsemigroup of idempotents. The groupoid of germs associated to an inverse semigroup encodes this action. Paterson pioneered the germ approach in [Pat99] with the introduction of the universal groupoid of an inverse semigroup.
    [Show full text]
  • Relations on Semigroups
    International Journal for Research in Engineering Application & Management (IJREAM) ISSN : 2454-9150 Vol-04, Issue-09, Dec 2018 Relations on Semigroups 1D.D.Padma Priya, 2G.Shobhalatha, 3U.Nagireddy, 4R.Bhuvana Vijaya 1 Sr.Assistant Professor, Department of Mathematics, New Horizon College Of Engineering, Bangalore, India, Research scholar, Department of Mathematics, JNTUA- Anantapuram [email protected] 2Professor, Department of Mathematics, SKU-Anantapuram, India, [email protected] 3Assistant Professor, Rayalaseema University, Kurnool, India, [email protected] 4Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics, JNTUA- Anantapuram, India, [email protected] Abstract: Equivalence relations play a vital role in the study of quotient structures of different algebraic structures. Semigroups being one of the algebraic structures are sets with associative binary operation defined on them. Semigroup theory is one of such subject to determine and analyze equivalence relations in the sense that it could be easily understood. This paper contains the quotient structures of semigroups by extending equivalence relations as congruences. We define different types of relations on the semigroups and prove they are equivalence, partial order, congruence or weakly separative congruence relations. Keywords: Semigroup, binary relation, Equivalence and congruence relations. I. INTRODUCTION [1,2,3 and 4] Algebraic structures play a prominent role in mathematics with wide range of applications in science and engineering. A semigroup
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 1 Logic and Set Theory
    Chapter 1 Logic and Set Theory To criticize mathematics for its abstraction is to miss the point entirely. Abstraction is what makes mathematics work. If you concentrate too closely on too limited an application of a mathematical idea, you rob the mathematician of his most important tools: analogy, generality, and simplicity. – Ian Stewart Does God play dice? The mathematics of chaos In mathematics, a proof is a demonstration that, assuming certain axioms, some statement is necessarily true. That is, a proof is a logical argument, not an empir- ical one. One must demonstrate that a proposition is true in all cases before it is considered a theorem of mathematics. An unproven proposition for which there is some sort of empirical evidence is known as a conjecture. Mathematical logic is the framework upon which rigorous proofs are built. It is the study of the principles and criteria of valid inference and demonstrations. Logicians have analyzed set theory in great details, formulating a collection of axioms that affords a broad enough and strong enough foundation to mathematical reasoning. The standard form of axiomatic set theory is denoted ZFC and it consists of the Zermelo-Fraenkel (ZF) axioms combined with the axiom of choice (C). Each of the axioms included in this theory expresses a property of sets that is widely accepted by mathematicians. It is unfortunately true that careless use of set theory can lead to contradictions. Avoiding such contradictions was one of the original motivations for the axiomatization of set theory. 1 2 CHAPTER 1. LOGIC AND SET THEORY A rigorous analysis of set theory belongs to the foundations of mathematics and mathematical logic.
    [Show full text]
  • Data Monoids∗
    Data Monoids∗ Mikolaj Bojańczyk1 1 University of Warsaw Abstract We develop an algebraic theory for languages of data words. We prove that, under certain conditions, a language of data words is definable in first-order logic if and only if its syntactic monoid is aperiodic. 1998 ACM Subject Classification F.4.3 Formal Languages Keywords and phrases Monoid, Data Words, Nominal Set, First-Order Logic Digital Object Identifier 10.4230/LIPIcs.STACS.2011.105 1 Introduction This paper is an attempt to combine two fields. The first field is the algebraic theory of regular languages. In this theory, a regular lan- guage is represented by its syntactic monoid, which is a finite monoid. It turns out that many important properties of the language are reflected in the structure of its syntactic monoid. One particularly beautiful result is the Schützenberger-McNaughton-Papert theorem, which describes the expressive power of first-order logic. Let L ⊆ A∗ be a regular language. Then L is definable in first-order logic if and only if its syntactic monoid ML is aperiodic. For instance, the language “words where there exists a position with label a” is defined by the first-order logic formula (this example does not even use the order on positions <, which is also allowed in general) ∃x. a(x). The syntactic monoid of this language is isomorphic to {0, 1} with multiplication, where 0 corresponds to the words that satisfy the formula, and 1 to the words that do not. Clearly, this monoid does not contain any non-trivial group. There are many results similar to theorem above, each one providing a connection between seemingly unrelated concepts of logic and algebra, see e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Monoids (I = 1, 2) We Can Define 1  C 2000 M
    Geometria Superiore Reference Cards Push out (Sommes amalgam´ees). Given a diagram i : P ! Qi Monoids (i = 1; 2) we can define 1 c 2000 M. Cailotto, Permissions on last. v0.0 u −!2 Send comments and corrections to [email protected] Q1 ⊕P Q2 := coker P −! Q1 ⊕ Q2 u1 The category of Monoids. 1 and it is a standard fact that the natural arrows ji : Qi ! A monoid (M; ·; 1) (commutative with unit) is a set M with a Q1 ⊕P Q2 define a cocartesian square: u1 composition law · : M × M ! M and an element 1 2 M such P −−−! Q1 that: the composition is associative: (a · b) · c = a · (b · c) (for ? ? all a; b; c 2 M), commutative: a · b = b · a (for all a; b 2 M), u2 y y j1 and 1 is a neutral element for the composition: 1 · a = a (for Q2 −! Q1 ⊕P Q2 : all a 2 M). j2 ' ' More explicitly we have Q1 ⊕P Q2 = (Q1 ⊕ Q2)=R with R the A morphism (M; ·; 1M ) −!(N; ·; 1N ) of monoids is a map M ! N smallest equivalence relation stable under product (in Q1 ⊕P of sets commuting with · and 1: '(ab) = '(a)'(b) for all Q2) and making (u1(p); 1) ∼R (1; u2(p)) for all p 2 P . a; b 2 M and '(1 ) = 1 . Thus we have defined the cat- M N In general it is not easy to understand the relation involved in egory Mon of monoids. the description of Q1 ⊕P Q2, but in the case in which one of f1g is a monoid, initial and final object of the category Mon.
    [Show full text]
  • Mereology Then and Now
    Logic and Logical Philosophy Volume 24 (2015), 409–427 DOI: 10.12775/LLP.2015.024 Rafał Gruszczyński Achille C. Varzi MEREOLOGY THEN AND NOW Abstract. This paper offers a critical reconstruction of the motivations that led to the development of mereology as we know it today, along with a brief description of some questions that define current research in the field. Keywords: mereology; parthood; formal ontology; foundations of mathe- matics 1. Introduction Understood as a general theory of parts and wholes, mereology has a long history that can be traced back to the early days of philosophy. As a formal theory of the part-whole relation or rather, as a theory of the relations of part to whole and of part to part within a whole it is relatively recent and came to us mainly through the writings of Edmund Husserl and Stanisław Leśniewski. The former were part of a larger project aimed at the development of a general framework for formal ontology; the latter were inspired by a desire to provide a nominalistically acceptable alternative to set theory as a foundation for mathematics. (The name itself, ‘mereology’ after the Greek word ‘µρoς’, ‘part’ was coined by Leśniewski [31].) As it turns out, both sorts of motivation failed to quite live up to expectations. Yet mereology survived as a theory in its own right and continued to flourish, often in unexpected ways. Indeed, it is not an exaggeration to say that today mereology is a central and powerful area of research in philosophy and philosophical logic. It may be helpful, therefore, to take stock and reconsider its origins.
    [Show full text]
  • Geometric Equivalence Relations on Modules 0
    Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra 22 (1981) 165-177 165 North-Holland Publishing Company GEOMETRIC EQUIVALENCE RELATIONS ON MODULES Kent MORRISON Department of Mathematics, California Polytechnic State University, San Luir Obispo, CA 93407. USA Communicated by H. Bass Received June 1980 0. Introduction In [4] Gersten developed the notion of homotopy for ring homomorphisms. A simple homotopy of two ring homomorphisms f,g : A +B can be viewed as a deformation over the parameter space Spec Z[t]. This is a homomorphism A+B[t] which restricts to f when t = 0 and to g when t = 1. Two homomorphisms f and g are homotopic if there is a chain of homomorphisms starting with f and ending with g such that each term is simple homotopic to the next. Let A be a k-algebra and k a field. Consider the finite dimensional representations of A and require that a simple homotopy of representations be given by a deformation over Speck[t] = A:. Using direct sum we can make the homotopy classes of representations into an abelian monoid. Now it is more useful to use any nonsingular, rational affine curve as well as A: for the parameter space of a homotopy. (This becomes apparent when A is commutative; see Section 1.3.) The abelian monoid of homotopy classes is denoted by N(A) and its associated group by R(A). Two modules (representations) whose classes in R(A) are the same are said to be ‘rationally equivalent’. In Section 1.3 we show that when A is commutative R(A) is isomorphic to the Chow group of O-cycles of SpecA modulo rational equivalence.
    [Show full text]
  • Section 4.1 Relations
    Binary Relations (Donny, Mary) (cousins, brother and sister, or whatever) Section 4.1 Relations - to distinguish certain ordered pairs of objects from other ordered pairs because the components of the distinguished pairs satisfy some relationship that the components of the other pairs do not. 1 2 The Cartesian product of a set S with itself, S x S or S2, is the set e.g. Let S = {1, 2, 4}. of all ordered pairs of elements of S. On the set S x S = {(1, 1), (1, 2), (1, 4), (2, 1), (2, 2), Let S = {1, 2, 3}; then (2, 4), (4, 1), (4, 2), (4, 4)} S x S = {(1, 1), (1, 2), (1, 3), (2, 1), (2, 2), (2, 3), (3, 1), (3, 2) , (3, 3)} For relationship of equality, then (1, 1), (2, 2), (3, 3) would be the A binary relation can be defined by: distinguished elements of S x S, that is, the only ordered pairs whose components are equal. x y x = y 1. Describing the relation x y if and only if x = y/2 x y x < y/2 For relationship of one number being less than another, we Thus (1, 2) and (2, 4) satisfy . would choose (1, 2), (1, 3), and (2, 3) as the distinguished ordered pairs of S x S. x y x < y 2. Specifying a subset of S x S {(1, 2), (2, 4)} is the set of ordered pairs satisfying The notation x y indicates that the ordered pair (x, y) satisfies a relation .
    [Show full text]
  • 06. Naive Set Theory I
    Topics 06. Naive Set Theory I. Sets and Paradoxes of the Infinitely Big II. Naive Set Theory I. Sets and Paradoxes of the Infinitely Big III. Cantor and Diagonal Arguments Recall: Paradox of the Even Numbers Claim: There are just as many even natural numbers as natural numbers natural numbers = non-negative whole numbers (0, 1, 2, ..) Proof: { 0 , 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , ............ , n , ..........} { 0 , 2 , 4 , 6 , 8 , ............ , 2n , ..........} In general: 2 criteria for comparing sizes of sets: (1) Correlation criterion: Can members of one set be paired with members of the other? (2) Subset criterion: Do members of one set belong to the other? Can now say: (a) There are as many even naturals as naturals in the correlation sense. (b) There are less even naturals than naturals in the subset sense. To talk about the infinitely Moral: notion of sets big, just need to be clear makes this clear about what’s meant by size Bolzano (1781-1848) Promoted idea that notion of infinity was fundamentally set-theoretic: To say something is infinite is “God is infinite in knowledge” just to say there is some set means with infinite members “The set of truths known by God has infinitely many members” SO: Are there infinite sets? “a many thought of as a one” -Cantor Bolzano: Claim: The set of truths is infinite. Proof: Let p1 be a truth (ex: “Plato was Greek”) Let p2 be the truth “p1 is a truth”. Let p3 be the truth “p3 is a truth”. In general, let pn be the truth “pn-1 is a truth”, for any natural number n.
    [Show full text]
  • Semigroups of Transformations Preserving an Equivalence Relation and a Cross-Section
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by Repositório Aberto da Universidade Aberta Semigroups of Transformations Preserving an Equivalence Relation and a Cross-Section Jo˜ao Ara´ujo Universidade Aberta, R. Escola Polit´ecnica, 147 1269-001 Lisboa, Portugal & Centro de Algebra,´ Universidade de Lisboa 1649-003 Lisboa, Portugal, [email protected] Janusz Konieczny Department of Mathematics, Mary Washington College Fredericksburg, VA 22401, USA, [email protected] Abstract For a set X, an equivalence relation ρ on X, and a cross-section R of the partition X/ρ induced by ρ, consider the semigroup T (X,ρ,R) consisting of all mappings a from X to X such that a preserves both ρ (if (x, y) ∈ ρ then (xa, ya) ∈ ρ)and R (if r ∈ R then ra ∈ R). The semigroup T (X,ρ,R) is the centralizer of the idempotent transformation with kernel ρ and image R. We determine the structure of T (X,ρ,R) in terms of Green’s relations, describe the regular elements of T (X,ρ,R), and determine the following classes of the semigroups T (X,ρ,R): regular, abundant, inverse, and completely regular. 2000 Mathematics Subject Classification:20M20. 1Introduction Let X be an arbitrary nonempty set. The semigroup T (X)offulltransformationsonX consists of the mappings from X to X with composition as the semigroup operation. Let ρ be an equivalence relation on X and let R be a cross-section of the partition X/ρ induced by ρ.ConsiderthefollowingsubsetofT (X): T (X,ρ,R)={a ∈ T (X):Ra ⊆ R and (x, y) ∈ ρ ⇒ (xa, ya) ∈ ρ}.
    [Show full text]
  • Math 127: Equivalence Relations
    Math 127: Equivalence Relations Mary Radcliffe 1 Equivalence Relations Relations can take many forms in mathematics. In these notes, we focus especially on equivalence relations, but there are many other types of relations (such as order relations) that exist. Definition 1. Let X; Y be sets. A relation R = R(x; y) is a logical formula for which x takes the range of X and y takes the range of Y , sometimes called a relation from X to Y . If R(x; y) is true, we say that x is related to y by R, and we write xRy to indicate that x is related to y by R. Example 1. Let f : X ! Y be a function. We can define a relation R by R(x; y) ≡ (f(x) = y). Example 2. Let X = Y = Z. We can define a relation R by R(a; b) ≡ ajb. There are many other examples at hand, such as ordering on R, multiples in Z, coprimality relationships, etc. The definition we have here is simply that a relation gives some way to connect two elements to each other, that can either be true or false. Of course, that's not a very useful thing, so let's add some conditions to make the relation carry more meaning. For this, we shall focus on relations from X to X, also called relations on X. There are several properties that will be interesting in considering relations: Definition 2. Let X be a set, and let ∼ be a relation on X. • We say that ∼ is reflexive if x ∼ x 8x 2 X.
    [Show full text]
  • Well-Orderings, Ordinals and Well-Founded Relations. an Ancient
    Well-orderings, ordinals and well-founded relations. An ancient principle of arithmetic, that if there is a non-negative integer with some property then there is a least such, is useful in two ways: as a source of proofs, which are then said to be \by induction" and as as a source of definitions, then said to be \by recursion." An early use of induction is in Euclid's proof that every integer > 2 is a product of primes, (where we take \prime" to mean \having no divisors other than itself and 1"): if some number is not, then let n¯ be the least counter-example. If not itself prime, it can be written as a product m1m2 of two strictly smaller numbers each > 2; but then each of those is a product of primes, by the minimality of n¯; putting those two products together expresses n¯ as a product of primes. Contradiction ! An example of definition by recursion: we set 0! = 1; (n + 1)! = n! × (n + 1): A function defined for all non-negative integers is thereby uniquely specified; in detail, we consider an attempt to be a function, defined on a finite initial segment of the non-negative integers, which agrees with the given definition as far as it goes; if some integer is not in the domain of any attempt, there will be a least such; it cannot be 0; if it is n + 1, the recursion equation tells us how to extend an attempt defined at n to one defined at n + 1. So no such failure exists; we check that if f and g are two attempts and both f(n) and g(n) are defined, then f(n) = g(n), by considering the least n where that might fail, and again reaching a contradiction; and so, there being no disagreement between any two attempts, the union of all attempts will be a well-defined function, which is familiar to us as the factorial function.
    [Show full text]